Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Darkwind

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Darkwind

Final (108/30/8); ended 22:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Maxim_(talk) 22:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Nomination

Darkwind (talk · contribs) – Fellow editors, I'm glad to show you Darkwind. He has been on this project for 9 years and about 9 months (March 2003). The areas where he edits ranges from content to vandal fighting. Other than vandal fighting, he has been active in the deletion process and dispute resolution. In AfD, 91% of his votes matched the closing consensus. On the content side, 51% of his edits (10,776 of 20,940) are to the main space. From the above, I would proudly say that Darkwind has what it needs to become an admin, and if not, I have faith in him that he will correct all of the raised issues before the end of this RfA. Darkwind would be a truly good addition to the admin crew as his past work clearly shows. John F. Lewis (talk) 16:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I'm honored to accept this nomination. —Darkwind (talk) 20:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: I expect that I'll continue working in copyright problems, which Sphilbrick (t c) recently encouraged me to join. I also plan to continue my habits of RC patrolling and moving suitable images to Commons, both of which are a little bit more efficient with a mop. There's also a terrible backlog over at Requested moves I feel I could help resolve. I have to admit I have a bit of a tendency to move around a lot and just work on whatever feels right on a particular day, so I may eventually wander to other areas like deletion discussions or ANI, or whatever has a backlog to resolve.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I'll say right up front that I haven't really made large content contributions to a particular article in a while. I consider myself very much a WikiGnome, so I definitely feel my best efforts are behind the scenes. I'm happy each time I can remove some vandalism from a BLP or copyedit someone's well-meaning but less-than-polished additions. That kind of work tends to work best with my schedule, as I rarely have time to spend several hours writing content, but I often have an hour or two to spare so I can work on gnomish stuff. Over the years, I've done RC patrolling, new page curation, moving images to Commons, abuse reports, 3O, AfC, GA reviews, copyediting, Check Wikipedia, dab fixing, and probably a bunch of other stuff I've forgotten. I think every little contribution, whether to the meta-work of building the English Wikipedia community, or directly to content, helps make this a better encyclopedia.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I'm remarkably lucky, in that while I've been a Wikipedian for over 9 years, I haven't had any really significant disputes with other editors, and thankfully I've never been in an actual edit war. I believe strongly that if you keep the discussion on the content, and not the editor, most disputes practically resolve themselves (sometimes with a little outside help). Also, when I make the occasional mistake, when it's brought to my attention, I fix the mistake instead of getting offended. As an admin, I doubt that would change very much. Of course I'd expect the occasional blocked editor to react with anger, but that can still be handled with a level head and a rational response.

Amended answer: I'd completely forgotten that I had volunteered at Wikiquette alerts back in the day when that was A Thing. I've posted some diffs below in the General Discussion section, showing how I've helped assist with disputes between editors (and gotten tangled in a couple of somewhat heated discussions myself in the process). —Darkwind (talk) 08:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from John

4. I greatly admire the admin-like work you have done around the place, especially your work on resolving copyvios. To save me (and other participants) a great deal of digging, could you point us to any article you have improved by adding text and/or refs to? This relates to your answer to question 2 above; I'm absolutely fine with your being a Gnome, but it would reassure me if you could point to something, however minor or long ago, that you have actually added.

A: I had to dig a bit, because RC patrolling means a lot of minor edits, but I found several articles where I made a positive contribution. I also found a new appreciation for why people keep lists of things they're proud of -- it's hard to find stuff in the middle of 20,000+ edits!

Anyway, I found some places where I wrote a stub, did a fairly big copyedit, a bigger copyedit, added some sources, and added a couple of paragraphs of new material (that last one was from before WP:V was a thing, if you can believe it). Also, I've rewritten a couple of dab pages and stubs. If images count, I've found and added some free images to a few articles as well.

I suppose I'm not entirely a Gnome after all -- just mostly! —Darkwind (talk) 02:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

5. Where do you stand on civility enforcement?

A: WP:CIVIL is a policy, not just a guideline, for several good reasons. For one, English Wikipedia has been practically hemorrhaging editors for a couple of years now, and it won't get any better if we let people who are deliberately harassing others or making personal attacks run amok and scare off existing editors and bite new editors. As noted in the civility policy, harassment and egregious personal attacks can (and should) result in a block to prevent additional abuse -- and these things are clearly defined. However, blocks are preventative, not punitive, and any admin faced with a case of incivility should examine their possible courses of action in that light. —Darkwind (talk) 02:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from gwickwire

6. You call yourself a Gnome (forgive me for being blunt). If you were to become an administrator, would you continue your non-admin gnomish tasks? Or would you focus on admin tasks? Optional part If you had to say, as a percentage of current time spent, how much time would you spend on editorial, non-admin tasks after recieving the mop?

A: I mostly expect to continue on with the same tasks I've taken up recently — copyright problems investigation (except I'd be able to delete the stuff that qualifies for G12), RC patrolling (except I'd be able to block the vandal instead of reporting to AIV), new page curation (except I'd be able to delete the obvious CSD cases), etc. There are certainly plenty of admin-only tasks, but many of them have experienced admins already overlooking those areas; there are only a handful of admin tasks that are backlogged (although some of them are quite a ways behind).

I don't intend to drop my work as a "regular" editor, but I also don't plan to get a set of tools and not use them at all. If I were to formulate it as a percent, I expect at least 75% to 80% of my Wikipedia editing time will still be devoted to the work I can already do without the tools, especially at first. As I become more comfortable with other areas where administrator help is needed, that may shift somewhat down the road. —Darkwind (talk) 03:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

7. If given the mop, would you be open to recall? If so, would you please give an overview (one sentence or so) of your criteria for accepting a recall, and if not, why wouldn't you be willing to be recalled?

A: Absolutely. I'm not perfect, and if it turns out that I'm not a fit for the community as an admin, I'd rather have that brought to my attention and resolved than not.

I would say if at least 5 autoconfirmed registered users plus at least two other admins were to propose my recall, then I would be absolutely willing to open a discussion to that effect (possibly an RfC, or something at AN; there's no official forum for it) and abide by the consensus that's reached. —Darkwind (talk) 03:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Ottawahitech

8. Can you please explain under what circumstances an article should be sent to deletion through a wp:CSD / wp:Prod / wp:AfD or does it really matter?

A: It definitely matters. CSD criteria are clearly defined (and I won't rehash them here unless you'd like me to be more specific), but if an article doesn't meet them, it shouldn't be speedy deleted. If CSD were to get backed up and I pitch in to help, I wouldn't have to make a decision either way (decline vs. delete) in edge cases, I could always leave it for a more experienced admin. PROD is less defined, but that's why any editor can contest a PROD for any reason or no reason, and again if I were to help with expired PRODs, if I'm concerned about an editor's PROD reasoning, I could always send the article to AfD instead of deleting it, or contest the PROD myself. As for AfD, an article should always be put up for community discussion via AfD if there's a reasonable possibility of salvaging the article into something useful, or if there's any reason the article's deletion might be controversial or adversarial. —Darkwind (talk) 03:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Additional questions from Carrite

9. Your month-by-month contribution graphs show an extremely unusual pattern — very high activity for two or three or four months, followed by long droughts of virtually no activity... What is it exactly that causes you to greatly reduce editing after these flurries of high activity?

A: This is probably not the answer some of my fellow editors would want to hear from an RfA candidate, but I feel it's important to be honest (not only here, but in general). Quite frankly, other things in my life will sometimes take precedence over volunteering to improve Wikipedia. Among other things, during my editing gaps I participate in a community band, volunteer at the local LGBT community center, get roped into playing MMOs and other social games with my local friends (whom I can't seem to convince to join me here), volunteer with other websites and open source projects, and so on. What always brings me back to Wikipedia is the underlying concept and goal: to build an easily accessible repository of human knowledge for everyone to use (and in turn, improve), and when I can pull my attention and time away from other things, I contribute what I can.

I understand some of the concern over editing gaps is that an editor who's gone for a while may miss important policy/guideline changes or even a general shift in community attitude toward a particular aspect of editing. I want to take a moment to reassure everyone that I always take time to refresh myself before I jump back in (for example, I look over things as best I can at Village Pump and also stuff that's published in the Signpost). I have not in the past made any disruption by returning after a break, and I don't intend to do so in the future, and the best way to do that is to be careful and cautious before taking action (whether that's committing an edit to an article, commenting in a discussion, or the hypothetical article deletion, user block, or other admin action). —Darkwind (talk) 03:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

10. Have you ever edited Wikipedia under any other user name? If so, what names were those?

A: I have not. I may occasionally edit without logging in if I'm at work or at the library and just want to fix a typo, but that's it. —Darkwind (talk) 03:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your answers. Carrite (talk) 06:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC) Note: It boggles my mind that some weirdo edited my m-dash into a dash in question 9. Seriously bizarre compulsiveness, seek professional help immediately... Carrite (talk) 06:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The same one who changed my username? o.o — ΛΧΣ²¹ 06:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Additional questions from ΛΧΣ²¹

11. This is an inevitable situation you may live as an admin: blocking users. One way or the other you may live this in your future admin career. So, please give me a summary of how you interpret blocks from a blocked user perspective, from your personal perspective, and how it may have (from your perspective) permanent consequences on users when performed slightly.

A: Please correct me if I misunderstand the intent of your question. To answer your first and third questions together, any blocked user is likely to be upset and likely angry, as well as possibly confused. They're likely to feel that they are being punished for something that they might not even understand. This is likely to be much, much worse if the block was hasty, ill-considered, and/or unjust, and may discourage a user from ever returning to the project. I firmly believe that every editor has something of value to contribute, whether or not it's apparent on the surface, and to scare or anger them to the point of not returning by executing an action that can be seen as punitive is unacceptable.

To answer the middle part of your question, having never been on the other side of a block, I see blocks as a tool to prevent damage to Wikipedia (either its content or its community), and they should always be used with that goal in mind. They are (by far) not the only tool any editor, much less an admin, has to achieve that goal -- simple education (showing someone why their behavior or contribution is unacceptable) is probably the best and definitely the first line of action that can be taken with an editor behaving poorly, and a block should only be used as a last resort. (This of course excludes the category of users that can be blocked without warning in an effort to prevent disruption of the project: inappropriate usernames, unapproved bots, etc.) —Darkwind (talk) 04:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

12. Which is, for you, the main difference between CSD and AFD?

A: To put it briefly, CSD is for situations where the community has already established a consensus that a particular type of page or content is not useful or desired as part of the project. AfD is for those situations where one or more editors believe an article is not appropriate, to allow the community to provide input and form a consensus. I'd be happy to expand on this if you'd like. —Darkwind (talk) 04:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

13. When will you consider that a user is deliberately commiting a copyright infringement, and when will you consider it's unintentional? (optional)

A: Assuming good faith, and being unable to read a user's intention except by their actions, I'd assume that their infringement is unintentional or based in ignorance up until they clearly ignore policy education/warnings by committing additional infringement. —Darkwind (talk) 04:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Additional questions from Diesel-50

14. To follow up on Question 5: what is civility, and why is it important?

A: Civility, at its most basic, is the practice of avoiding being rude to others. I'm sure many of us were raised with the saying "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all." We can't exactly do that while editing Wikipedia, because sometimes we have to point out where we disagree with another user's contributions or their stance on a particular issue. However, what we can do is to remember that all of our fellow editors are humans behind their username or IP, and treat them that way. This can be as simple as remembering to say "thank you" to as complex as restraining the urge to tell someone just exactly what you think of the quality of their writing. There are a number of well-written essays on the topic I could point to, as they've said it better than I can.

Why is civility important? Because if we spend all of our time yelling at each other, name calling, belittling, and otherwise reducing each other instead of building each other up, we won't get any actual encyclopedia-building done! Not to mention that there would be a lot fewer people to do that encylopedia-building with. Civility is what greases the wheels of society, and that applies as much to the microcosm as to the macro.

It's also even more important to focus on keeping yourself civil when you're online at a site like Wikipedia than it is in the offline world (see Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory, a phenomenon noted widely online, not just at Wikipedia). It's all too easy to pretend it doesn't matter when you can shrug off the consequences, which is why holding people accountable for the tone of their behavior is important. —Darkwind (talk) 06:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

14 B. Please expand your response, addressing at least one concern raised below.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

A: Certainly. Also, forgive me in advance for being blunt, but I think that's what's required at this point, especially "this late in the game".

As I interpret the comments regarding civility in the oppose section, primarily those made by John (t c) and Bishonen (t c) and expanded by others, the root concern appears to be that I'm going to barge in like a bull in a china shop and start blocking people for what I perceive to be civility infractions, contrary to the community's current consensus of what civility is.

Let me first reassure everyone that I have no intention of barging in and imposing my own viewpoint of anything, on anyone. First of all, that's not what an admin does, and second of all, that's not what I have an interest in doing. I intend to stay right where I am, working on WP:CP, WP:MITC, WP:NPP, WP:RCP and so on. I do not intend to stick my nose in the middle of anyone's wikipolitics, least of all something that appears to be a contentious and divisive issue. So yes, if this RfA is successful, I would have the technical ability to wade into this civility mire and start blocking people, but I don't want to. Wikipedia is a big place, and there's plenty of work for me to do (with or without the mop) without ever having to get into this apparent mess.

If I ever DO venture deeper into dispute resolution, I would need to take a watch-and-learn approach, just like I do whenever I'm trying to learn a new task or skill, either on- or off-wiki. I am not going to stick my nose in and start blocking people willy-nilly. We have a blocking policy for a reason, and I intend to follow it.

Bishonen (t c) notes that there are blocks issued that are clearly intended to be punitive but hand-waved away with "but it's preventive". I agree, I've seen it, and it will probably continue to happen -- but I don't plan to be part of it. When I say I plan to follow the policy, I mean it. I said in my original answer to John (t c)'s question #4 that civility is violated when there is harassment or personal attacks, and that those things are defined. Bishonen said it's not that clear -- but I believe it is. The harassment policy says specifically:

Harassment is defined as a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons. Usually (but not always) the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely. Harassment can also include actions calculated to be noticed by the target and clearly suggestive of targeting them, where no direct communication takes place.

— Wikipedia:Harassment

I consider myself a reasonable observer, and therefore capable of interpreting a person's actions in light of that definition. Personal attacks are also clearly defined, insofar as there is a list of things which are never acceptable. Anything that isn't as clear as what's in those two policies is a situation where I don't plan to venture. Even if I start to learn more and participate more in dispute resolution, it doesn't mean that I have to take action when given an ambiguous case -- I am more than happy to leave that to the experienced admins who are more in touch with the community's current views on this type of thing. Given that I have not indeed been following the alluded-to controversy over civility that is "tearing the community ... apart", I don't intend to dive in and start pushing my own opinion just because I'm given another set of tools.

I hope that clarifies things a bit. I sincerely respect the opinions and concerns of everyone who's commented and !voted here, and I'm not trying to make light of anyone's worries, but I really am not planning to overturn the apple cart here -- I'm just trying to make my contributions to Wikipedia more efficient and to clean up in some of the dustier corners, not go to the center of town and start "arresting" people. —Darkwind (talk) 05:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Additional question from Amadscientist

15. When looking through your contributions something stood out. You don't make edit summaries when reverting the contributions of others. You also do not use the talkpage of the article when doing so. Could you explain this please?

A: What you're seeing there is the use of the native rollback feature. The MediaWiki software does not give the opportunity to enter an edit summary when using rollback, which is why its use is reserved for cases of unambiguous vandalism (and a few other uncontroversial situations). Similarly, since the edit I'm reverting is almost always a form of vandalism, no discussion on the article talk page is necessary; instead, I leave a note on the user's talk page. When the reversion is not unambiguous vandalism, I do use an edit summary at a minimum, and if it ever came to any further discussion, I'd of course use the talk page -- but since most of these are found during RC patrolling using tools like Lupin's anti-vandal tool, I don't generally have the bandwidth to watchlist and see if the editor re-does the edit. I assume the tool I'm using will catch it again (and then I can discuss with the editor on the article talk or their user talk) or another editor doing similar patrolling will see another inappropriate edit. —Darkwind (talk) 14:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Additional comment on #15: The edit I reverted yesterday, which you mention in your Neutral comment, had removed 6 subsections of content, the See also section, References, categories, and the interwikis. That seems a clear enough case of either vandalism or mistaken editing to me that the use of the native rollback feature is justified (and an edit summary is not specifically necessary because of the obvious nature of what I did: restoring the content). Asking someone to use an edit summary when removing six sections of content plus a giant swath of metadata isn't ironic in my opinion, regardless of the specific tool I used to restore that content. —Darkwind (talk) 14:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

General comments

• Links for Darkwind: Darkwind (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Darkwind can be found here.
• Edit stats posted on the talk page. -- LuK3 (Talk) 20:30, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

• Would you please opt-in to the month count? Thanks in advance. Go Phightins! 21:36, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

  I've done so. —Darkwind (talk) 02:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Experience with conflict and dispute resolution

To everyone who's participated in this RfA so far, I thank you for your valuable feedback, both those of you who support and those who have opposed (and the neutral comments too).

One thing that's been pointed out in some of the Oppose rationales is that I haven't evidenced any experience with inter-user conflict and the dispute resolution process. Actually, I do have some experience in that regard. I was actually a volunteer at Wikiquette alerts back in the day when WQA was a thing, in August-October 2007 specifically. I completely forgot to mention this in my responses above.

Digging back in the page history, there are several threads which show how I interacted with other users who were upset and pursuing a form of dispute resolution(the indenting is terrible on that one), including one where I was getting irritated and it showed [1] [2] [3] [4] -- so you can see how I handled that kind of interaction as well.

I'm aware that this was all several years ago, and not only have Wikipedia policies and guidelines evolved, but so have community attitudes (especially concerning civility, it seems). However, my general demeanor hasn't changed much in the past 5 years, and I expect I'd handle disputes approximately the same way as I did back then. Please let me know if I can clarify any of this -- I'd be happy to answer any questions. —Darkwind (talk) 08:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Clarification of Additional Comment on #15

Would you care to re-write that answer? I suspect that I understand what you meant to say but I don't think that what appears here now is that. - UnbelievableError (talk) 03:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure. Amadscientist (t c) commented in their Neutral statement that there was irony in my templating an IP user for removing content without an edit summary, while I did not use an edit summary in restoring said content.[5] My additional comment at #15 was intended to say that I disagree, given that:

1. MediaWiki's native rollback does not allow edit summary usage, and;
2. Native rollback is specifically permitted when reverting unambiguous vandalism, and;
3. The edit I reverted was a clear case of unambiguous vandalism since the IP editor removed six entire sections/subsections, including the references, categories, and interwiki links, without any explanation either on the talk page or in their edit summary.[6]

I was trying to say that I don't think it's ironic to use a template message that (in part) asks that IP user to use an edit summary when removing content, even though I didn't use one myself when reverting, because my own actions were self-explanatory insofar as restoring the content. I hope that makes more sense, as I can see how my original phrasing in that comment wasn't very clear. —Darkwind (talk) 04:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. - UnbelievableError (talk) 04:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, but....you never actually accused the editor of vandalism. In your reply to Q15 you state "since the edit I'm reverting is almost always a form of vandalism, no discussion on the article talk page is necessary". The problem is, that isn't always the case and, in fact, this was the only edit the IP had made or has made since. How do you come to make the judgement that the edit was clear vandalism and why not use the talkpage to discuss what may have been an accidental removal if you cannot use the edit summary. Is it possible that you were using tools to quickly and simply didn't take the time to make a human edit?--Amadscientist (talk) 08:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Reviews of good-article nominations

Question

You wrote that you had reviewed good articles in the past. Would you please list all the reviews you've done, or as many as you can remember?

Thanks! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Have you seen User:Darkwind/GA reviews? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! 21 August 2011: NK Maribor (Review), Mobile Suit Gundam SEED (Review), and NSB Class 73 (Review). 25 August 2011: Shandi Finnessey (Review). Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Support

1. Support as nom. Good luck Darkwind. John F. Lewis (talk) 20:12, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
2. Support. Knowledge of copyright, and the trust of Moonriddengirl,[7] are more than sufficient to merit confirmation. Kablammo (talk) Kablammo (talk) 20:24, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
3. mabdul 20:39, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
4. Support - I found nothing wrong when reviewing his contributions. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:42, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

   I find it disappointing that people are opposing solely because he has gaps in his editing. Some people have to take time off for various things in life. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

5. Support - great contributions. Torreslfchero (talk) 21:49, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
6. Support great contributions, would be a net positive with the tools. -- LuK3 (Talk) 21:53, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
7. Support - He seems like a very able, levelheaded editor. I can't see anything wrong with him becoming an Administrator. Greengreengreenred 22:57, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
8. Support - grand candidate. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 01:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
9. Support. - Looks like a fine candidate to me. We could use all the help we can get, so thanks for being willing to help out. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
10. Support - Experienced and trusted long-time contributor. Help with backlogs is always badly needed. INeverCry 02:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
11. Support - Looks like a competent candidate who would use the tools well. Ajraddatz (Talk) 05:52, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
12. Support - Long-time user, seems competent. The opposes don't bother me, either. He'll be a good addition to the admin team. (X! . talk)  . @331  .  06:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
13. Support - He may not be a constant work-horse, but we need all the help we can get. He seems to be a competent, levelheaded editor and familiar with the various administrator forums and procedures. I don't see any problems, personally. Kaldari (talk) 07:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
14. Support Per Thine Antique Pen. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
15. Support, there's nothing wrong with gnoming, and there's certainly nothing wrong with filing an RfA at any time. If we mean to prohibit RfAs at any given time of year, we ought to notate the page to say that, but I would not support any such action. A review of the candidate's contributions don't show me any wrongdoing, and do show me a long history of well-thought interaction that's led to very little conflict. What are they supposed to do, deliberately go get in a fight just to take the high ground in it, and then somehow know what everyone's preferred time to file is? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
16. Support Long time level headed user, no concerns. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 15:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
17. Support This user needs admin tools to make gnome work more efficient. After demonstrating a long history of good behavior, I think it is safe to expect at least more of the same. The user has a lot of experience in what they do. I like this user's friendly userpage because it tells what this person does on Wikipedia. In considering the oppose statements, users Diesel-50, Dennis Brown, Townlake, John, Bwilkins, Miniapolis, are all correct that this person is lacking in much of the typical experience which admins have. Darkwind may not be inclined to be able to handle all of the problems which admins often handle, but I would trust this user to know how to refer problems to someone who can find resolution to the problem. I do not think all admins need to do all things, and I do hope that this person continues to experiment in various community areas, and this person has not experimented to the extent that many other admins have, but this is still a very experienced person with a long history of doing work in admin-fields. The community would benefit from this user's adminship. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
18. Support Handy with a mop already and hasn't broken anything. Interested in working in an area with an obscene backlog. All pluses, no true negatives that I can see. I'm not at all concerned with the gaps in editing; Wikipedia is a volunteer operation, not a full-time job. Danger ^{High voltage!} 17:16, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
19. Strong support Nine years of generally problem-free editing doesn't qualify you to be an admin? If you'd had an RFA in 2005, you would have passed. Nyttend (talk) 17:24, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

    As I pointed out below, they have only been fairly active 12 months out of those 108 months, so saying "nine years" is not altogether accurate. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

    I didn't even have that when I became a sysop. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

    And if that was the only concern, I would be up here as he seems like a good sort but I haven't seen anywhere they have followed through on anything and I can't get a bead on their actual demeanor because they haven't ever faced a single disagreement. That is pretty important to me (and retention) when handing out block buttons. This can be fixed if you could nail them down to one place for a bit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

20. Support Seems to meet my criteria. --Nouniquenames 18:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
21. Extremely strong support I've only just missed out on conflicts for three and a half years, with three years of complete inactivity in the middle. Thomas85753 19:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
22. Support - Candidate has been here longer than most of us have and has a squeaky-clean record. Opposers concerns are unconvincing. Jusdafax 19:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
23. Support Does it say anywhere that admins have to be full-time operatives? Some of us can squeeze apparently full-time presence in between other lives (at this moment I'm in a wet field by a lake that's currently going down, otherwise I'd be having to leave quickly and wouldn't be online at all...). Some can't. So long as the candidate isn't a wrecker, does it matter if they are here one month and not the next? "All this user does is housekeeping work" - isn't that a good qualification for getting a mop? I spend my time mostly deleting things - which on the whole improves the overall quality of the project by removing offerings to the great Kon-Tent that have been deemed unacceptable. Housekeeping. Some admins are politicians, some are techies, some are janitors. I can't currently see a problem in giving Darkwind a mop. Peridon (talk) 20:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

    My oppose isn't about devotion to housekeeping, it's because no one knows how Darkwind will handle disagreements. With the extra tools he may well run into them, and the canned response to Question 5 confirms suspicions about his depth of thought. Diesel-50 (talk) 21:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

24. Support Candidate is not perfect, but he does not need to be. I'm inclined to go with the WP:NETPOS approach. The specific drawbacks outlined here do not disqualify adminship. User has stated he will apply the tools to the areas he knows best and expand from there. No history of edit warring. A perfect candidate would be on Wikipedia constantly, but having periods of inactivity doesn't detract from the time they spend on the project. No reason to think the tools will be misused. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 20:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
25. Support. Administrators don't need to be jacks-of-all-trades. He has demonstrated competency and promise in backlog and cleanup work. Shrigley (talk) 21:16, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
26. Opposes are wholly unconvincing, and I've either had a pleasant interaction with him or I've seen one with someone else. Can't remember which. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
27. - filelakeshoe 21:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
28. Great candidate. --LlamaAl (talk) 22:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
29. Support, we could use the help, and I agree with what Shrigley said above. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
30. Well, if you've been around for 9 years why not? –BuickCenturyDriver 23:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
31. Support Candidate seems competent and has made great contributions, and I agree with Shrigley and Peridon. Webclient101^talk 23:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
32. Support Despite initial reservations about editing history, I now think this candidate would be a net positive as an admin. Miniapolis (talk) 04:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
33. Support I am happy with the answers to my questions. He'll be a good admin. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 06:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
34. Support - Clean block log and no indications of assholery. The on-and-off nature of participation at WP is unusual for an administrative candidate (zero edits for Nov. 2012, for example) but cumulatively there is sufficient contribution over a far more than sufficient interval of time to make this a "Adminship is No Big Deal" situation in this case. Answers seem level-headed. Carrite (talk) 06:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
35. Support very long term civil user with a clean block log and many useful contributions. ϢereSpielChequers 07:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
36. Support A trusted user to me. --Hydriz (talk) 07:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
37. Support I expect this user will continuing going about his business and perhaps help with the admin backload as well. Can't imagine he'll suddenly start getting into controversies and abusing the tools. Also admire the honesty of the answer to question 9. Λυδαcιτγ 08:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
38. Support - the honest answer to Q9 has eased my concerns over the breaks in editing - sometimes it's good to get away. Upon further consideration, I believe that this user will not abuse the tools., and could actually further their good work around here with them. GiantSnowman 09:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
39. Support editing or nine years and hasn't blown up the wiki yet? That's enough. Adminship is "no big deal" and the opposes are ridiculous. Seriously, the nom lacks experience? Give me a break.--Scott Mac 13:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

    I last went skiing -- for the first time and last time in my life -- in 1979. Does that mean I've been a skier for the last thirty years? Does it mean I'm an experienced skier? Townlake (talk) 20:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

    No, but if you skied nine out of the past ten years, you likely would be, even if you took months off each year. Kablammo (talk) 02:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

    Few would deny you access to the mountain (or the lift, if that analogy suits you better) based on the amount of time since you last wore skis. --Nouniquenames 04:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

40. Support - my examination of their record seems fine, and the opposes are ridiculous in the extreme. WilyD 14:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

    All of them? So you consider the answer to q5 shows real insight, you regard their content contributions as being splendid, and you see loads of talk page interactions that I cannot see? And you think there is no cause for concern in the candidate not providing edit summaries but warning others for doing the same thing? If you're going to make statements like the opposes are ridiculous in the extreme then you had better back up what you say with some actual arguments, else it is you who risk looking ridiculous. This applies equally to Scott Mac. --John (talk) 14:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

    I rarely come to RFA (I remember why now). One oppose says that the nominator has not enough experience. Another that they don't like Christmas nominations. Seriously, I hear all over Wikipedia that we've a problem with too few admins and too hard to pass RFA. This is exactly why. RFA used to be about making sure candidates were not going to blow up wikipedia - now you want experience in every field and exactly the right nuance to answers on the latest community politics (in this case civility blocks). Mostly adminship is about cleaning the drains. It is totally out of proportion here. I passed back in 2005, with 4 months experience, today I'd be overwhelmingly shot down for 1,000 quibbles. This is why Wikipedia is dying.--Scott Mac 14:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

    Collectively, yes. Inexperienced is ridiculous. Insufficient love for baby Jesus is ridiculous. Doesn't look likely to abuse the position is ridiculous. He could read this, wait, and try again is silly. I don't like how they were nominated is silly. One bad apple spoils the bushel, and there's more than one. WilyD 14:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

41. Support While article work is lacking (which probably would have kept me from participating in this RFA), Scott is right, and to counter some of these ridiculous oppose votes. Secret ^account 14:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
42. Support. Opposes are ridiculous, copyright work is far more important than having to write a bunch of featured articles. Wizardman 16:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
43. Support per Scott Mac and Secret. There's too much "gotcha" in the oppose section, and it makes me want to enter an opposite !vote in reaction. Darkwind, if you pass, please prove my AGF well-placed, and if you don't, please learn from it and try again. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

    Looking back at more recent comments here, I would like to expand on what I said before. The project really, really needs more admins who are interested in copyvio. It's terribly important, and there's an unmet need. Given the attention in this RfA to the on-and-off editing history, I think having someone help with copyvio from time to time is a clear net positive in comparison to not sysopping them at all. (Just because one can imagine a better scenario does not make this scenario a bad one.) And, no matter the pattern of editing activity, I think it's pretty clear from the duration that the risks of untrustworthy behavior are low. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

44. Support It takes all kinds. Gnomes are important too. ‑Scottywong| express _ 16:25, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

    "It takes all kinds. Gnomes are important too." This strikes me as a weak rationale for supporting an RFA. Townlake (talk) 20:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

    It's simply a response to the equally weak oppose rationale that admins need to be prolific content editors. Badgering multiple supporters seems rather desperate. ‑Scottywong| yak _ 08:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

    You make my brief responses to these two support votes sound so intense and dramatic. I'm glad my words have such power. Townlake (talk) 04:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

45. Support From the supporters, I mostly agree with Scott and WillyD. From the opposers, I mostly agree with Bishonen. The only difference I have with Bishonen's oppose and which led me to this side is I think the response to Q5 (and Q14) will be a slap in the face to the candidate that the community generally doesn't see civility as black and white as the candidate does. I personally have trouble reconciling my feelings about the importance of civility and respect for each other with the endless assault that FA builders receive and their feelings when their work is shredded and also with the folks who are constantly dealing with civil POV pushers. On the one hand, I think everyone gets a block like the candidate, but on the other it's a matter of an endless assault on some people that is bound to cause a reaction.--v/r - TP 16:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
46. Support While I don't think Darkwind is perfect, I do think he will be a net positive to the project. KTC (talk) 16:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
47. Support Seems to be straightforward. And, I agree with Wily D and Scott Mac. Kraxler (talk) 19:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
48. Support. Sufficiently qualified, in my view. dci | TALK 20:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
49. Support: WikiGnome seeks tools for improved gnoming, news at 11. --Carnildo (talk) 21:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
50. Support. Although some (not all) of the opposers have made some valid points, on balance I believe the candidate is well-qualified to work as an administrator in the area of copyright enforcement, and will have the sense to move cautiously in other areas until he gains more experience in them. Given that the candidate has edited for nearly a decade, albeit not every day or every week, I don't see great risk in conferring adminship. That being said, if this RfA is unsuccessful, I hope the candidate will address the opposers' concerns and come back to this page in the future. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:25, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
51. Support. Per Wizardman. I think experience with copyright issues is a huge plus. I also really like the candidate's answer to question 9 (regarding inactivity). I feel Darkwind is sincere that they're up to speed on policy and ready to jump in to admin duties right away. Best of luck, Lord Roem (talk) 21:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
52. Support Copyright experience. Also, gnoming experience is likely to give broad knowledge of policy and content issues. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
53. Support - Darkwind is a solid editor with 9+ years of experience. Despite inconsistent editing patterns, the mop would allow him to do what he has already been doing more efficiently. Spencer.mccormick (talk) 02:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
54. I am convinced that Darkwind would me a huge asset to Wikipedia as an administrator, particularly when it comes to fixing copyright violations. A cursory review of his editing statistics indicates that while his activity is indeed sporadic, he has still been a dedicated contributor for a long time with plenty of experience under his belt. I do not share the same concerns as some of the opposers regarding his answer to Q5 — he advocates an even application of our civility policy, but I trust his assurance that he would not block outside the bounds of reason. John F. Lewis is a relatively inexperienced nominator, but not an idiot; I'm confident that he recognized a good candidate in Darkwind and nominated him on that basis. Opposing someone because their nominator does not meet a certain threshold is ludicrous. Finally, I see no indication that Darkwind is lacking in communication skills, although the points raised by Dennis, John, Boing, et al are perfectly valid and were factored in before I opted to support. Kurtis ^(talk) 03:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
55. Support - I trust that Darkwind won't use the tools for evil. He's a good reporter at WP:AIV and his contributions in copyright matters would help the wiki greatly. He's also a long time contributor, even through he might not have edited for long periods at a time. Techman224^Talk 03:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
56. Support we need admins working copyright desperately. --Rschen7754 05:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
57. Support After reviewing a number of contributions (including some AfD participation), I roughly end up sharing the thoughts expressed by Newyorkbrad. In addition, I know this will help the editor's work with copyright, which is an area of need, and I trust the editor to not screw the place up irretrievably. --j⚛e decker^talk 06:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
58. Support. His tenure here at Wikipedia is long, he have made sensible contributions and is fighting against vandalism. I trust Darkwind , he helps other Wikipedians, and I am sure he will continue it. His stand on the copyrighty thing was right. Trust by a user and stand on copyright are my basis in backing an admin.Ian Raphael Lopez  :) (talk) 09:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
59. Support: A net positive. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
60. Support I don't see any compelling reasons to oppose what appears to be a sufficiently experienced and clueful candidate. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
61. Support I appreciate the candidate's disposition towards careful and civil editing guidelines. To me, attitude matters more than actual editing experience, and I believe the candidate meets the minimum threshold for both. Solarusdude (talk) 16:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
62. Support I can see no major issues that would preclude him being an excellent admin. Best, Mifter (talk) 18:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
63. Support Answers seem satisfactory, contribs and experience are good, I can see no problem with handing him the tools. ♠ 18:43, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
64. Support Has clue and seems trustworthy. Spencer^T♦C 19:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
65. Support Not convinced by the opposers' rationales. ThemFromSpace 19:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
66. Support I can't really see why this would go wrong and I find that gnomes often make good admins because they're less likely to think in terms of wikipolitics. I also want to take this opportunity to say that opposes based primarily on the strength of the nominator are beyond depressing. They're also mildly insulting to the nominator who, as far as I can tell, is an editor in good standing with >1k edits and six months of activity. Back in the days, this might even have looked good enough for a credible RfA candidate. Now we're told it's not good enough to be a nominator? Please... Pichpich (talk) 20:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
67. Support I read to the bottom--support, oppose and comment--and chose to land here even though some of the opposes are by members whose opinions I respect and with whom I usually agree. From "All this user does is housekeeping..." (the role of the sysop, in my opinion) to "lack of interaction" (not a lot but enough to show me that Darkwind is reasonable and civil), I found nothing among the opposes to hint this candidate would misuse the tools. For myself, that was enough to support. Stated willingness to work on backlogs and to continue valued contributions makes me hope he will be a superior admin. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 00:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
68. Support.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 05:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
69. Support. Seems trustworthy and has a long record of positive contributions. I can't see any reason to suggest that he would abuse the tools. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 10:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
70. Support - the timing actually makes me more inclined to support, given the slower-than-usual admin response time over the break. A great real-time example of a need for more admins generally and a lots-of-little-things admin is always valuable. Stalwart111 11:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
71. Support. The issues cited by the opposers don't look like they would lead to the candidate repeatedly creating problems as an administrator. Trustworthy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
72. Support. +sysop is not a big deal and I don't see major issues that would make the candidate unsuitable. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 17:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
73. Support (moved from neutral) I don't see any compelling reasons to indicate that the candidate's use of the tools would be damaging to the project. Although finding scant evidence of user interactions, things like Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive168#User:Godmadeuniverse1 reported by User:Darkwind (Result: 48h) (and communications leading up to it) all seem in order. -- Trevj (talk) 17:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
74. Support Valuable contributor, already accustomed to doing "behind the scenes" type of things which will be made easier with a mop. I like his answers to questions and his clean record, and I have no fear that he will abuse the tools. I think he will be an excellent administrator. --MelanieN (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
75. Support - I think this is the first time I have ever changed my mind on an RfA. I am still concerned about the candidates lack of interraction, but the new information provided has eased those concerns considerably, and it was enough to nudge me in the other direction. I thank the candidate for suffering through this RfD process, regardless of the outcome. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
76. Support - Looks good to me, and even if most of the activities done after becoming an admin are small Gnomish activities, that's fine with me. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
77. Support Gnomes are important too, and 9 years of controversy free editing is incredible, even if there is less activity. I am concerned with the lack of content contributions, but I think that it should not be required for adminship. Tazerdadog (talk) 23:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
78. Looks strong. — foxj 01:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
79. Generally seems sane, and while there are things I would prefer that the candidate improve on (the opposers have highlighted the vast majority of them), I tend to agree with basically every supporter who has posted a reason. NW (Talk) 01:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
80. Support —stay (sic)! 04:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
81. Support - We can always use more admins interested in copyvios, and WP:RM can certainly use help. The opposes aren't all that convincing for me. I've seen Darkwind's name pop up over the years, and I can't recall any instances where his behavior was in any way questionable. Best of luck, Darkwind. Parsecboy (talk) 14:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
82. Strong Support - Darkwind will definitely be fit for a very, very good admin. Cmach7 (talk) 16:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
83. Support Opposes are unconvincing. Ray^Talk 19:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
84. Per Sue Rangell, basically. - Dank (push to talk) 20:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
85. Support Housekeeping of the 'pedia is valuable work too and another admin helping out with copyvios would very helpful. I see nothing to suggest that Darkwind can't be trusted with the tools. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
86. Support I'm working on the assumption that someone who managed to avoid conflict this long as an editor will probably choose admin chores that will also let him avoid conflict. GaramondLethe 00:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
87. Support Since no sufficient evidence has been presented that this editor will abuse the tools or the position, I support.--MONGO 06:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
88. Weak support While I honestly have no strong feelings one way or the other about this candidate, I am STILL a sucker for that (probably unintentional) userbox combination of "this user is a gay male" and "this user plays the pipe organ". So good luck  :) Keepscases (talk) 07:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
89. Support looks qualified, we definitely need more administrators willing to do copyright work, and I'm not at all impressed by the oppose rationales. Increased content contributions would have little if any effect on the areas the candidate proposes to work in, as is the case for most admin tasks. It's clear that the candidate has sufficient communication skills to deal with people questioning their admin actions. And the opposes citing Q5 merely amount to complaining about the latest political trend. Hut 8.5 12:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
90. Support Why not? Happy New Year.—cyberpower _Offline^{Happy 2013} 13:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
91. Support. Clean logs, good answers to the questions, and broad experience across the project are all more than enough for me to support. WikiPuppies _bark ^dig 16:31, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
92. Support. Looks competent and trustworthy. While more experience with content is desirable, admins come in all shapes and sizes and there's plenty of tasks that Darkwind would be well suited to. Gobōnobō ^{+ c} 17:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
93. Support - Minimal content creation means nothing to me in the context of admin duties. I believe the candidate has shown proper civility where required, and has sufficiently shown that they intend to use the admin tools for the general improvement of Wikipedia. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 17:47, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

    Support - per Blue Rasberry, Scott Mac, WilyD, Danger, Wizardman, Tryptofish, Lord Roem, etc. All the behind-the-scenes work contributes to content creation, like Scottywong's bots and those who work on copyvio like this candidate. I like Darkwind's attitude - more of same would benefit the project immensely. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

    !vote indented, user is a sockpuppet —GFOLEY FOUR!— 23:31, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

    Vote is now by a now-banned sock. --Rschen7754 23:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

94. Agreed with Uncle Milty - this editor has done nothing to make me question their judgement.  7  02:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
95. Support this candidate's experience, demeanor, intentions, and readiness to assume the responsibilities of adminship. – Athaenara ✉ 02:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
96. Support I note Bish's concern about civility enforcement, but deem that an administrator is not required to get involved in civility enforcement to be a useful administrator to the project. Rich Farmbrough, 02:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC).
    
97. Support Having reviewed the editor's record, etc, I see a mature editor who takes well to mop work, and has done a good job. I trust them with the bit. None of the opposes are compelling. -- Scray (talk) 02:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
98. Support Response and clarification of response to Q15 showed maturity and personality traits I would hope for in a sysop. - UnbelievableError (talk) 04:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
99. Support. Hard working, thoughtful, serious about the project. No concerns from me. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
100. ← — Yash ^[talk] 08:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
101. Support (moved from oppose). A long history of constructive edits and some good-article reviewing (the first providing good guidance, and the 2nd being rather perfunctory of a carefully edited anime article; the 3rd, and 4th, you can evaluate). The straightforward and intelligent response to the civility question is a model of honesty and perspicacity. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
102. Support No issues - give him a mop! Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} ^(Whisper...) 13:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
103. Support - We need admins more than we need to find reasons to oppose! User seems to have a clue, hasn't caused trouble and has been around for a while. Contribs are kinda low and lacking in depth but using the contribs as a guide it doesn't seem like this user is going to abuse the tools nor start tearing things up trying to make a name for themselves. Kumioko (talk) 15:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
104. Support. Seems competent and level-headed. I'm sure he will familiarize himself before just stomping through new china shops. As a fellow wikibreaker, it would be hypocritical for me to oppose on those grounds. Guðsþegn (talk) 16:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC).
105. Support no reason to think this user would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 17:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
106. Support Rzuwig^► 17:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
107. Support As no big deal.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 20:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
108. Support - Garion96 (talk) 21:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. All this user does is housekeeping work. There is no interaction with others on user or article talk pages, none at all, and we have no idea how this candidate will comport himself in a dispute. Diesel-50 (talk) 21:05, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

   There seems to be a lot. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 01:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

   The 35.4 % of edits to user talk? All automated, wich Huggle and Twinkle. Diesel-50 (talk) 01:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

   243 edits to their own talk page, seems responsive to talk page inquiries when not taking a break. Maybe not the strongest element, but certainly better then "none at all". Monty₈₄₅ 01:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

   He has about a dozen edits on their current talkpage and archive 4 combined. Archive 4 starts August 2011. That's not much at all. Diesel-50 (talk) 02:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

   I don't know if it was intentional, but when adding your additional question, you changed my name :) Just a funny note though... — ΛΧΣ²¹ 21:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

2. Oppose I'm sorry, but I have to oppose, per the reasons in my neutral and more. You created 5 stubs and didn't do more than one or two edits to them (one probably needs to be at AFD [8]), The most you have spend on any user talk page is 10 edits, most of them were only one edit. I see only 12 months of sporatic real contributions, it just took 9 years to get that. The most edits to one article is 17. #10 in that list is 8 edits. Your #10 top talk page is 3 edits, meaning you don't talk on article pages much at all. Same with user talk. In short, I simply have NO idea what kind of admin you would be. I'm sure you wouldn't intentionally do anything bad, no doubt, but with literally no experience in extended discussions in any venue, I have no evidence you will see a problem through, can deal with a heated content dispute, or determine consensus. The overly simplified answer to #5 also worries me that you would be too quick to block for minor rudeness, not out of meanness, but out of not understanding the nuances of the policy. Don't get me wrong, I think gnomes are the unsung heros at Wikipedia and I think you are a good one, but I can't support adminship. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
3. Inexperience where it matters, as reflected in the answer to Q3 and as noted by other opposers. Adminship is generally supposed to be granted to trusted users, and for me this candidate doesn't have enough of a track record yet for me to know if I can trust them in controversial situations. This is not a commentary on the value of the editorial work the candidate does; not every good editor should be an admin. Townlake (talk) 03:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
4. Oppose with regret per Dennis. I am regretful because from a quick look at the quality of the copyvio work I thought that Darkwind would have been a useful addition to the admin corps. On article content building (Q4), these additions are very minimal (though I love that the candidate is an Asimov fan!) and don't give sufficient evidence that as an admin Darkwind would have adequate understanding of the concerns of those of us who devote hours to building and polishing content. On Q5, this very vanilla answer gives no assurance that the candidate would not create more problems by blocking for minor breaches of civility. I needed to see some understanding of just what a delicate and nuanced area civility has become in recent years and this wasn't apparent in the answer. As Dennis says, there is little to no interaction in user talk to judge the candidate's people skills on either. I am sad because I had a good gut feeling about this candidate, but I have to default to oppose at this time. --John (talk) 12:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
5. Oppose I'll have to echo Dennis' comments above. Although gnomish work is good, sometimes you need to step up and take responsibility for something, somewhere - otherwise, we'll never see you "in action" or understand how you'll truly react when poked with a firebrand. That said, I'm also against RfA's that abuse the break between Christmas and New Year's when most editors are out doing family things - note, the latter is not the primary reason for this oppose, but it does say something about you as an editor (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

   Whatever happened to AGF - who's saying this RFA has been chosen deliberately for the holiday break? Even if it had, doesn't it stand to reason that supporters as well as opposers would be absent? GiantSnowman 14:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

   No. RFAs filed during the holiday lull have less eyes on them to scrutinize the candidates' records. There's a reason RFA opposition tends to pile on over one or two issues; once one person digs something up, that "something" can raise concerns for a lot of people. But someone has to find the issues first. Townlake (talk) 15:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

   Categorical no to assuming good faith? Per WP:AGF: "Avoid accusing others of bad faith without clear evidence that indicates bad faith." --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 21:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

   "... the latter is not the primary reason for this oppose ..." – yes, but being relatively experienced at RfA, I think you should have realized that your comment would be taken poorly—as it should be, considering that it's a baseless assumption submitted without any evidence. This is one of the reasons why RfA is derided as 'broken'. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

   Wow people, I do expect you to have read what I said: I did NOT say I would ever oppose simply because they filed over Christmas - in fact, I have probably !voted support on a Christmastime RFA in the past. I simply said I am of the opinion that I am against them, not voting against them. I was clearly stating that I would consider their choice of timing towards their character, not towards their application. An absolutely excellent candidate who runs over Christmas is going to get a positive !vote, if the timing is the sole "suggestion" that there's a character issue. Please actually read the statement (speakign of AGF) before making such ludicrous comments (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

   If it's not a reason to oppose then why mention it at all? GiantSnowman 17:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

   Because last time I checked, I'm allowed to have an opinion, and my personal opinion is that I'm not typically pleased when people run RfA's over the holidays. I also like the colour yellow. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

   And I hope you don't mind if I completely disagree with you on that point — I prefer blue. =) Kurtis ^(talk) 08:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

   Puhleez -- could we take this bickering to respective User talk pages? It's becoming disruptive. (BTW you're both wrong -- brown is better.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

   Bwilkins, I DID read what you said (now you AGF), and even with the caveat the point is ludicrous. We've had whole process changes made in 72 hours over Christmas (see rollback) so vetting one admin over 7 days is seriously "no big deal". Indeed, 70+ people have already involved themselves in the process - more than enough. Your comment is indicative of a dreadful culture of nitpicking and pettiness that keeps growing around RFA. No enough GAs. Not quite the right nuance on civility. Doesn't meet my standards for ...lalala. Whatever happened to "no big deal"? Folk are constantly on about the lack of admins, it is no wonder no one much comes to RFA with this shocking culture.--Scott Mac 18:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

   Regretful oppose Although the candidate seems to be a levelheaded fellow gnome (and I like their replies to the concerns raised thus far), a more consistent editing history is important in someone who wants the mop. Miniapolis (talk) 15:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)Moving to support after further reflection

   Why? Genuine question; I've never understood this line of reasoning. Danger ^{High voltage!} 03:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

   It's mentioned in the GRFA, but it's just one factor among many; after thinking it over some more, I've changed my mind about the candidate. Miniapolis (talk) 04:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

6. Oppose Others indicate that the candidacy is weak. In checking myself, I find this edit. In this, a large block of text is removed on the grounds that it is uncited OR. The text appears to be quoting from the California Penal Code and so these grounds seem misleading. Warden (talk) 15:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

   Fairly easy mistake to make. It's a giant gob of text with a singular, brief reference buried halfway through. Nothing that necessarily shows misunderstanding of policy or intent to mislead. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 21:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

7. Oppose per lack of consistent contributions, although I have no problem with the timing of this RfA. Perhaps it was more convenient for the candidate to run at this time because he will have more time to devote to the RfA due to being off of work or something. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 15:52, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

   Why the needless speculation about motives? Stay on topic. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 21:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

   It was a point raised by someone else at this RfA and it has been raised at other recent RfA. I was simply saying that I don't think it's relevant. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 22:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

   Oh, I mistook the tone of your comment. Never mind. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 03:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

8. Oppose per Dennis and John. Intothatdarkness 22:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
9. Oppose per concerns expressed mainly by Dennis. Namely, inconsistency and low amounts of communication. —Theopolisme 22:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
10. Oppose. Little evidence of collaboration with other editors and limited content creation. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:46, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

    Since when did being an administrator have to do with content creation? Last time I checked they did maintenance work. Techman224^Talk 02:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

    Check again. Admins block editors (most of whom edit content) and protect and delete articles (which are content) - these are the main functions of the toolset. A candidate without content creation a) has less experience in content-related areas and is so less likely to be able to adequately judge any but the most simplistic of content problems or disputes, b) has had little chance to demonstrate knowledge of many relevant policies, c) has little history of collaborative work or encyclopedia-building. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

    The majority of blocks that are not for open proxies or sock puppets or block evasions are for simple vandalism; few actually have to do with content disputes. If a content dispute actually got really bad, it would be taken to a appropriate noticeboard, request for comment etc. In severe cases disputes can be taken to Arbitration. I bet there are lots of admins around that don't want to get involved into content disputes and just do behind-the-scenes work. I see that one of his specialties here is with copyright and with that nominating pages for deletion, which he's been doing good for a while now. Administrators don't have to get involved in every single task that requires the tools. There are administrators that just specialize in one or two areas, and don't venture out of those area that often. Being around for a while means he gets how most things are done. Techman224^Talk 03:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

    Those noticeboards are staffed by admins, and those pages being nominated for deletion someone has (usually) put an effort into writing. The larger issue here is this: many candidates would do just fine if kept to one or two relatively uncontroversial areas. The problem is we've no way to keep them there (the toolset offers access to all admin tasks, not just those behind the scene), nor to effectively intervene if they do get into a less black-and-white area and make a mess of things. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

    So basically what you're saying is that every candidate for adminship must be familiar with every single aspect of that job, even through they might not be involved with everything? With that logic we would barely have anyone that would qualify. It is that kind of reasoning which is causing a shortage of RFAs and scaring people away from it. Techman224^Talk 22:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

    No, what I'm saying is that every candidate should be familiar with the point of this project: creating an encyclopedia through collaborative content-building. That's the reasoning on which Wikipedia was founded, after all. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

11. Oppose per the concerns about collaboration with other editors and content creation listed above, as well as concerns about improper CSD tagging (particularly around March 2012 in his CSD log).--Slon02 (talk) 23:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
12. Oppose, not yet. This RFA has generated significant amounts of guidance that Darkwind can use to make him a more well rounded candidate for adminship in a few months. Andrew (talk) 03:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
13. This is another of recent RfA's where I stated my decision was swayed by the strength of the nominator. With all things equal, I very well may have supported adminship now, on a good self nomination; but I find this nomination ill advised. Unless I am missing something, the nominator is not experienced enough to make the strong claims necessary to recommend an administrator. A serious candidate might be flattered by a new user making such a gesture, but they would be showing wisdom to have consulted with others; perhaps admins; prior to running. The nominator calls Darkwind one of his or her four "friends" on their user page and I consider that a bit conflicting. Take all the advice from this RfA and come back in 6 months. I think it will benefit you as well to be that prepared when you do get the tools. And there are many users here who will help you along over those six months, I'm sure. --My76Strat (talk) 05:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

    Oppose emphatically per My76Strat. How many times have you seen candidates supported solely based on who their nominator is? You can't have it both ways. Keepscases (talk) 10:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

    (Move to support) Oppose, but not a Herculean oppose. No evidence that Darkwind will use the tools for payback against users with whom Darkwind has had previous conflicts or to support their friends in such conflicts. The standards of the administrator corps must be maintained. The candidate should gain experience in edit-warring and having an administrator friend threaten and block their opponents and come back in 6 months. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC) The Nomination and the nominee's answers are lightweight. Successful candidates (who deserve approval) respect participants; their responses are written for an audience that is familiar with policy and that is hungry for straight answers that suggest recognition of complexity, common sense, and somewhere insight.15:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC) If this RfA does not succeed, just gain more experience with discussing articles with editors, focusing on writing concisely and to the point (linking to only one policy point, as a heuristic), and you will be easily confirmed next time. Good luck! 00:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

    Uhm, what? WilyD 11:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

    Don't troll RFA, Kiefer.Wolfowitz. Bishonen | talk 13:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC).

    Inside every laugh is a cry.... Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

    Oh, yes, I could tell you were expressing your own frustrations, no problem. Using a random RFA for such a purpose is disrespectful to the candidate. Bishonen | talk 14:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC).

14. Oppose. I'm sorry, I know question 5 (civility enforcement) is very difficult and there certainly isn't one "correct" answer. But I'm not happy to see such a carefree, almost jaunty reply to it. Are you aware that, precisely, the question of what civility/incivility and egregious personal attacks are is tearing the community and the admin corps apart? (Your answer to Q 14, while fuller, doesn't exactly suggest such an awareness either.) You may be the only person I've ever seen using the phrase "clearly defined" in this area. I wouldn't oppose you for having opposite opinions on civility enforcement to my own, but I really think I must oppose somebody who doesn't appear to see the problems. Sorry. I'll be prepared to reconsider if you revise your answer a bit, or perhaps rather add to it, because it's not so much what you say as what you don't say. Adminship may not be a big deal, but it's not something to enter without having thought some about this, the most difficult, part of the job and showing some awareness of the inherent problems, and being willing to discuss them in a somewhat analytical and personal way. For instance, "preventative not punitive" is a very pious ideal, but what exactly does it mean? It's very easy to game. Many blocks are in my opinion obviously punitive (if you don't agree, please say so), but get defended as being intended to deter (=prevent) others from committing the same offence. If this is the actual situation, might it be better to rephrase the good old wikisaying as "blocks are not for revenge, but for prevention and for defining the limits of behaviour on Wikipedia" or something like that? That's just a thought, one example, I don't necessarily expect you to address that particular one. But I'd just like to see a little more depth in this answer, and more of your own personal opinions, too. Your current answer is superficial and by-the-book. Bishonen | talk 13:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC).
15. Regretful Oppose, for a couple of reasons. I think gnome work is great, and in many ways gnomes are the unsung heroes of Wikipedia. But I think a suitable admin candidate needs to be able to demonstrate reasonably extensive interaction with other editors, with some experience of disputes or other problematic areas, so that we can get some idea of how they will handle interactions under pressure. Admin actions will get you into disputes, sometimes quite fraught ones, and getting the tone of interaction with others right can be very difficult - I have lots of experience of it, and I still get it wrong sometimes. Also, as others have suggested, I don't think I see a proper appreciation of the complexity of civility - it's something that has divided the community for some time, and it really is a lot more difficult than "talk nice or face action". I'd suggest getting involved in dispute resolution for a while. For example, look for newcomers having problems and try to help them out - there are plenty of places you can find disputes to help with. I look forward to being able to support a future admin run when I can see something of how you handle interaction and dispute. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
16. Also regretful Oppose, largely per Dennis Brown. I have no reason to think Darkwind will use the tools irresponsibly but there is not enough related experience for me to judge either way, and his very sporadic busts of activity don't help that situation. I think Darkwind's commitment to CV work sees him on the right track, but I would like to see him build his expertise a little more before running for adminship. Pol430 talk to me 17:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
17. Weak oppose (from neutral) - The lack of focused content creation and following up on disputes in talk namespace is what moved me from neutral to weak oppose. I think that if perhaps he gets a GA or even a couple solid B-class articles, my concerns will be mostly addressed, but I have trouble supporting a candidate who doesn't have a lot of experience in content creation and improvement. Go Phightins! 17:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
18. Oppose I think the editor would probably not misuse the tools, however when looking a bit further I noticed that his contributions to articles represent more than half of his edits (51.43%) but his talkpage contributions only represent 2%. Frankly.....this is unacceptable for an admin candidate. Besides his own talkpage discussions...his communication with others is almost nonexistent.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
19. Oppose - The candidate is to be lauded for his contributions and demeanor, but regretfully, I have concerns similar to those expressed by others about the lack of experience on article talk pages, solid article editing, and the somewhat glib answers to the civility questions (5 & 14; per Bishonen's comments). It's very possible that he would be a great admin, but there are just too many unknowns in my mind to tip the scale toward supporting the candidate at this time. I would urge him to contribute more in the areas where he lacks experience, and come back in another 6-12 months for another try. - MrX 00:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
20. Oppose per Bishonen and Boing! Nikkimaria (talk) 02:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
21. Oppose - Not enough of a track record, some of the supports give me pause, and both Dennis and My76 bring up points enough for me to oppose. Shadowjams (talk) 18:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
22. Oppose - The answers to my questions weren't horrible, however the answers to the other questions and other editors concerns have me here for this go-round. Mainly the lack of content and talkpages, but also some concerns about civility. I'd rethink a support in about 6 months maybe, after some good article work and continuing without anything bad happening. gwickwire^talk_edits 18:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

    Oppose - First let me say that I wouldn't wish the RfA process on anyone. It is an inhuman nitpicking that is often unfair, and in many cases confrontational. I know that good editors have left Wikipedia over RfA scrutiny. So please take what I am about to say as gently...GENTLY...as possible, because the candidate is a much braver person than I am, being willing to endure this process. I am opining to oppose only for the reason of lack of interraction with others on Wikipedia. The other issues are all entirely red-herring issues as far as I am concerned. As an admin you need to be a "people person", and I am not seeing that. Be well. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

23. Oppose with some regret. I would need to see some significant, recent interaction with other users (including collaboration on article creation and improvement). And although I don't believe an admin needs to be a premier prolific content creator, I do believe that admins need to have at least some nontrivial content experience (more than just gnoming). I would be much more attracted to your candidacy if you were to get at least one or two Good Articles under your belt. Also, please take to heart the various concerns that have been raised about the civility issue (including disruptive superficial civility or "civil POV pushing" as described in WP:PUSH) — this has become a very serious issue, and we need to become more conscious of it. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 04:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
24. Oppose. I too am concerned about the lack of substantive content contributions, which appear to me to be a prerequisite to acquiring the delete function. Also the superficial understanding of the whole civility issue, which is an enormous and thorny problem. Further, "algae isn't very interesting" is not an attitude I'm looking for in an administrator. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:47, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

    There seems to be a little misunderstanding. "algae isn't very interesting" is not the attitude of Darkwind, it's the attitude of the media, ergo, there's a certain difficulty to find source material for the article in question. On the contrary, the speedy withdrawal, without drama, of the nomination (made in good faith under the guidelines), after other editors voiced valid arguments, is an attitude which I would very much appreciate in an admin. Kraxler (talk) 16:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

    The presence of a weak delete !vote in that discussion suggests to me that the discussion would have been best left (despite the nomination being withdrawn) for closure by an uninvolved party, per WP:WITHDRAWN. As indicated in the oppose above, this is a minor (although recent) issue, and of little significance in isolation. -- Trevj (talk) 17:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

    [To Kraxler]: Independent of what Darkwind actually meant, I feel the statement as it stands is likely to be rather off-putting to members of the learned society who, as experts on an important topic, are people the encyclopedia is keen to recruit. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

    I agree, but am willing to assume that the candidate will exercise more care in the future. -- Trevj (talk) 17:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

25. Per Sue and Dennis - being an admin requires experience much as it does knowledge. You will be required to make judgement calls and to interact with others and sometimes (or often) in problematic disputes. Your editing stats just don't show that there's enough experience with these sorts of situations. We have little evidence of your abilities in the more difficult areas of editing here thus we have no idea how you'll react when faced with having to intervene. On this basis like Sue, Dennis & John I'd oppose regretfully until you spend more time on these aspects of your editing---Cailil ^talk 12:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

    Not disagreeing with you, but I don't want anyone reading this to assume Sue is opposing ... she's supporting. - Dank (push to talk) 18:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

26. Oppose.The candidate doesn't seem to have strong idea in what areas he would use his mop, even suggesting perhaps ANI and DELETE discussions, when he has literally no record of interfacing with others in contentious situations?! So no. (If the candidate wanted to concentrate in his areas of expertise, presumably copyright, Commons moves, Requested moves, then I think it is a big loss too, but it isn't his fault, since he has numerous years of proven stability, but the Admin tools are not broken up to give him what he needs in those areas. The candidate's responses to civility issues were shallow, but that squares with me as normal given no experience in contentious areas. And there is major lack of experience in content creation or building. I would not want to hand over the block button to the candidate under those circumstances unless either it was clear he was definitely not interested in going into areas like ANI and DELETION. We are losing a reliable hand here in the copyright and other areas, but that is not his fault, it is the fault that Admin tools are not broken up at all to support speciality areas, while keeping the block button and tools for other content-related areas separate and for other candidates with evidenced experience in the pertinent areas. [I'm not trying to open a thread here about why we don't separate the tools, but I am puzzled why WP hasn't made that logical move yet, and prefers to have these endless debates based on the same illogical point that 1) the Admin package includes all the tools, 2) an Admin candidate needs to be trusted in all the areas those tools apply, 3) it isn't realistic to expect a candidate to demonstrate trusted experience/knowledge in all those areas, and 4) that the candidate should re-apply to RfA after spending time boosting his experience/knowledge in those areas [even though the candidate may not have any interest in those areas -- which is like making someone eat "peas" when they may not like them]. For me that is why RfA is "broken"/dysfunctional, because the tools are not divided up but come in one package only. And not because of nitpicking. [The "nitpicking" is a function of the dysfunction that the tools are not broken up!]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
27. Oppose, per Dennis Brown - there is simply not enough evidence of engagement with other contributors to make adminship a sensible choice here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:31, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
28. Oppose - per Dennis, nine years but not much focused communication or content work...Modernist (talk) 03:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
29. Oppose - not yet ready for prime time. BO | Talk 16:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
30. Regretful Oppose Dennis definitely holds a good chunk of my concerns in his response. To expand though, the lack of response to talkpage questions is concerning especially when thinking forward to blocks. I'm also concerned that you might use AGF as a suicide pact and assume AGF too much when a block needs to be issued. In your copyright question you stated that you AGF. Sometimes you have to assume intent of a user and block, especially if the repeatedly post copyvios. The contributions pattern that you have also indicates that you might not be able to keep up with the changes going on with admin tools, although that is not required, it's important to at least have a clue what is going on. This oppose is not about what I can see, but what I can't see, and it's too concerning to support right now. Don't get me wrong, your work is good, but I don't think your ready just yet. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 19:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Neutral

Contemplative neutral (for now) - While I've never interacted with this user personally, (s)he seems like a potentially decent candidate for adminship. My biggest qualm is that the most edits (s)he's made to one page in article space is 17. That, coupled with the fact that (s)he averages just 1.4 edits per page leaves me with the impression that (s)he is a, and forgive the fact that this is going to sound harsher than it is intended, drive-by editor who doesn't always finish what (s)he starts. Staying behind to do the dirty work is, to me, an important quality of an administrator. I understand that this may be due to the fact that (s)he is a (self-described) Wiki-Gnome, something we certainly need, but I think that admin candidates need experience collaborating in article space. While the aforementioned qualm might not be a reason in and of itself to oppose, it is currently keeping me from supporting. I will continue to monitor his/her answers to optional questions and may change my opinion because of them, but for now I must remain neutral. Respectfully, Go Phightins! 22:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC) Move to weak oppose. Go Phightins! 17:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your feedback (and it's he, though I appreciate your care to be neutral there). You certainly have a valid point in that I haven't really done any in-depth work on any particular articles. When I'm working on something like typo fixing or general copyediting, I do tend to come to an article, improve it along the lines of whatever project I'm working on, and move on. However, I've done some work at AfC and GA review (for example) which might offset your concerns a bit. If not, I'd love to hear your comments, perhaps on the talk page or my own talk page, about what kind of future work would allay your concerns along these lines (especially if this nomination isn't successful after all).

Also, I've contributed through a few dispute resolution forums (mostly 3O) in the past, which is certainly a form of collaboration, if not in-depth on any specific subject. I can scrounge up some diffs if that would be helpful. —Darkwind (talk) 02:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that perhaps a good article or even a couple of solid B-Class articles would suffice, but I need to see some concentrated content creation before I can support. Go Phightins! 19:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

1. Neutral Only returned from a 2 month disappearance less than 3 weeks ago and when queried about it made a comment that he wouldn't do well at RfA because of the repeated breaks. Can you assure us that you won't be a part time admin in the future? Your month by month edit count is interesting, to say the least. The-Pope (talk) 02:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

   Thanks for your feedback/question. Insofar as that comment goes, it was a direct acknowledgement of the line in WP:GRFA regarding "long gaps in editing" being something !voters often find undesirable in an RfA candidate.

   Yes, I have had a tendency to come and go, but I think that's at least partially balanced by the fact that I always come back, and always contribute constructively when I do (even if it is in small ways). I do try to keep up with various things at en.wp even when I don't have a lot of time to actively edit (e.g. my subscription to The Signpost) so I won't be editing blind to new policies or guidelines. Also, to be frank, when specifically considering some of the backlogs such as Copyright problems or Requested moves, I think a part-time admin who's willing to do tedious work is better than no admin at all. (And I really hope that didn't sound as pompous as I think it did...)

   That being said, I've also had some life changes recently that have opened more free time in my schedule (on a more regular basis) which I'd be happy to go into in more detail, if anyone really wants to know. —Darkwind (talk) 02:24, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

   UndecidedMoved to oppose after further review - Both the neutral comments above raise very solid concerns, forcing me here for now. My threshold for article experience is fairly low, but I'm not sure Darkwind even meets that. The lack of extended discussion on user talk pages outside of templating also concerns me as it doesn't really tell me how they will react in a heated discussion, or even when having to explain a block. I think it is misleading to say they have been here over 9 years, when in fact there has only been 12 months with over 500 edits over the years, accumulated in a very inconsistent way. I appreciate the gnoming they do, but I just don't see enough experience doing the things an admin has to do, dealing with edit warring, or a content dispute, or even understanding the nuances of policy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

2. neutral I have had a good look at the prods. Many are worthwhile, and some are let down by admins applying an inappropriate speedy delete. Some others I have restored as I think the article was worht having in the encyclopedia. Many of the deleted contributions are due to file being marked for move to commons and then uploading there and being deleted. However I note that despite al this picture work there have not been any valid fairuse uploads. The invalid was years ago and so is excusable. SO no real rason to oppose, but I will need to check more before any support. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

   Neutral - the lack of talk page use, as well as the looooong periods you have gone with zero or very few edits are concerning - but I see nothing concerning enough to oppose. I suggest you continue your good work as a vandal fighter and take on board some of the concerns raised, and I'm sure you'll fly by next time. GiantSnowman 14:46, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

   Neutral leaning towards Oppose pending an answer to the question posed to them about their reverts without explanation. The latest revert[9] left only a template on the users talkpage, asking "Hello, I'm Darkwind. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Play (theatre) without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary" Uhm....I find this to be a truly ironic message to be left by an editor that never seems to use the edit summary when reverting. I find the communication issue highly irregular for an admin candidate. Good answers to the question I posed, but I have done some further looking and have decided to oppose. See above.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

   (moved to support) Neutral I expect that the candidate would grow into the role, compensating for some of the concerns raised by others. Issues around communicating with others don't seem to be serious enough to be a big deal, in the absence of evidence that such users have been dissuaded from contributing as a result. I'll try to have a further look, in order to come down on either side. -- Trevj (talk) 09:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

   Excellent comment for a neutral position. I intend to look further myself.....but I have to say....I am very concerned about reverts without an edit summary while leaving messages about not using edit summaries to others.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

3. Neutral. I truly want to support this RfA, as I'm pretty sure Darkwind would do fine with the tools. But absent significant interactions with other editors, I'm just not sure. Basically I'm caught between Newyorkbrad's support and Boing's oppose. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
4. Neutral . Candidate hasn't done anything wrong as far as I can make out, but I need to see more experience in solid content work for someone who would have the power to police articles, and I need to see more interaction to evaluate the parts of adminship that don't actually need the the use of tools. There is support and opposition from editors who make valid points and whose judgement I trust, but they seem to have balanced each other out, so like Someguy1221, I'm caught in the middle. A change of focus with more emphasis on collaborative work in admin areas and I'll most likely support the next RfA. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
5. Neutral – Just like Someguy1221 and Kudpung, I am caught in between many great supports and opposes. But other than intermittent editing, I think Darkwind would be great with the tools. The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) 06:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
6. Neutral - I would love to support Darkwind, as he has done some great non-admin mop work, however I cannot get over the sense that it is still a bit too soon. Also his PROD success been questionable, although CSDs are a bit better, however this shows concern that he doesn't have a great eye for good AfD materials yet. Also concern over frequent wikibreaks. And while he provides a lot of help over at copyvio and aiv, which are great efforts, there has been little engagement beyond cleaning up quick fixes as one-offs. Lack of dispute or conflict is likely due to this sort of one-off edits. It concerns me that he wants tools but doesn't want to specifically stay within a specific realm, but roam around with admin tools. I might be more inclined if he specifically stuck to one area and showed a depth of experience in that area; or conversely, if the desire is to roam, then he needs more experience in other areas to support his use of tools in these other areas. Tiggerjay (talk) 18:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
7. Neutral Great points from both sides, as people have said before, he would be a great admin most likely, but there is too much unknown about this user. Cheers! JayJay^{What did I do?} 18:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

   Neutral Waiting for clarification of Q15. moved to Support - UnbelievableError (talk) 03:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

8. Neutral which would prefer to support. I think that Darkwind would be a net positive as an admin, and i lean that way; his reply to Q5, however, put some worry in my mind which was not alleviated by the further answer on civility. An area which is tearing even the admin corps apart, let alone pushing editors away, requires a better understanding ~ or evidence thereof ~ by an RfA candidate. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 10:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.